Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Membership Reconfiguration in Knowledge Sharing Network: A Simulation Study

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reshaping Society through Analytics, Collaboration, and Decision Support

Part of the book series: Annals of Information Systems ((AOIS,volume 18))

  • 1512 Accesses

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to propose a new approach that minimizes the negative impacts of structural barriers to knowledge sharing in the current of knowledge sharing networks by dynamically reconfiguring communities of practice (CoP) memberships. For this purpose, we develop several propositions to determine source CoPs, destination CoPs, rearrangement candidates, and recipient candidates to regulate the process of reconfiguring collaboration networks of source CoPs and reconstructing networks of destination CoPs after reallocating members from source CoPs to destination CoPs. To test the validity and usefulness of the proposed approach, we simulate two reconfiguration strategies that are different in the sense whether or not the distribution of expertise levels of CoP members is considered to determine the destination CoP. Our experimental results confirm that the proposed approach with either strategy effectively decreases potential threats to collaboration among CoP members and improves the structural healthiness of knowledge sharing networks of departments and organization. In particular, the number of CoPs in which knowledge creating is more active than knowledge sharing is significantly increased while the number of inactive CoPs is decreased. We attribute this finding to the fact that both experts and non-experts members are more evenly distributed across CoPs through rearrangement and these experts with light collaboration burden post their knowledge and practical skills to help non-experts in their CoPs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ahuja, M. K., & Carley, K. M. (1999). Network structure in virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10(6), 741–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., & Mohammed, Y. F. (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 22–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bang, H. K., Ellinger, A. E., Hadjimarcou, J., & Traichal, P. A. (2000). Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: An application of the reasoned action theory. Psychology & Marketing, 17(6), 449–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 292–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 183–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blyler, M., & Coff, R. W. (2003). Dynamic capabilities, social capital, and rent appropriation: Ties that split pies. Strategic Management Journal, 24(7), 677–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, G. W., Kankanhalli, A., & Sharma, S. (2006). Are norms enough? The role of collaborative norms in promoting organizational knowledge seeking. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(4), 357–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, G. W., Sabherwal, R., & Qian, Z. J. (2008). The effect of social context on the success of knowledge repository systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(4), 536–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosua, R., & Scheepers, R. (2007). Towards a model to explain knowledge sharing in complex organizational environments. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(2), 93–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botkin, J. W. (1999). Smart business: How knowledge communities can revolutionize your company. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantner, U., & Graf, H. (2006). The network of innovators in Jena: An application of social network analysis. Research Policy, 35(4), 463–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R. L., & Parker, A. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R., Parker, A., & Borgatti, S. (2000). A bird’s-eye view: Using social network analysis to improve knowledge creation and sharing. Knowledge Directions, 2(1), 48–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Burlington: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, R.-J. (2007). Investigating patterns of interaction in networked learning and computer-supported collaborative learning: A role for social network analysis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 87–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, M. B. W., Narasimhan, S., & Rhee, H.-S. (1998). Communication and coordination in the virtual office. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulk, J., Heino, R., Flanagin, A. J., Monge, P. R., & Bar, F. (2004). A test of the individual action model for organizational information commons. Organization Science, 15(5), 569–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 265–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, K. S. (2008). A comparative analysis of knowledge sharing climate. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(3), 186–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library & Information Science Research, 18(4), 323–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helms, R. W. (2007). Redesigning communities of practice using knowledge network analysis. In A. Kazi, L. Wohlfart, & P. Wolf (Eds.), Hands-on knowledge co-creation and sharing: Practical methods and techniques (pp. 253–273). Stuttgart: Knowledge Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helms, R. W., Ignacio, R., Brinkkemper, S., & Zonneveld, A. (2010). Limitations of network analysis for studying efficiency and effectiveness of knowledge sharing. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(1), 53–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, P., & Kiesler, S. (1995). Communication across boundaries: Work, structure, and use of communication technologies in a large organization. Organization Science, 6(4), 373–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (2001). Transfer of knowledge in knowledge management systems: Unexplored issues and suggested studies. European Journal of Information Systems, 10(2), 72–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, R., Van den Bulte, C., & Valente, T. W. (2011). Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science, 30(2), 195–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge management: The importance of a knowledge‐centered culture. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 351–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Q., Ravid, G., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information Systems Research, 15(2), 194–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Lee, B. (1995). R&D project team climate and team performance in Korea: A multidimensional approach. R&D Management, 25(2), 179–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (1997). Fair process: Managing in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, D., Oh, W., & Jeon, S. (2007). Broken ties: The impact of organizational restructuring on the stability of information-processing networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 201–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., & Green, R. T. (1991). Cross-cultural examination of the Fishbein behavioral intentions model. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(2), 289–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., Suh, E., & Kim, Y. S. (2012). Health diagnosis of communities of practices (CoPs). In Proceedings of AMCIS, Seattle, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesser, E. L., & Storck, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 831–841.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. (1993). The critical mass in collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R. (1999). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management. California Management Review, 41(4), 103–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R., & Archibald, D. (2010). Harnessing your staff’s informal networks. Harvard Business Review, 88(3), 82–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molm, L. D. (1997). Risk and power use: Constraints on the use of coercion in exchange. American Sociological Review, 62(1), 113–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nebus, J. (2004). Learning by networking: Knowledge search and sharing in multinational organizations. In Proceedings of the 46th academy of international business, bridging with the other: The importance of dialogue in international business, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, W., & Jeon, S. (2007). Membership herding and network stability in the open source community: The ising perspective. Management Science, 53(7), 1086–1101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). Learning from notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation. The Information Society, 9(3), 237–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck, W. H. (2004). Vita contemplativa why I stopped trying to understand the real world. Organization Studies, 25(7), 1271–1294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby, K.-E., & Simons, R. (2002). Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work – an empirical study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(5), 420–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorn, B. K., & Connolly, T. (1987). Discretionary data bases a theory and some experimental findings. Communication Research, 14(5), 512–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. Oxford: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tse, D. K., Lee, K., Vertinsky, I., & Wehrung, D. A. (1988). Does culture matter? A cross-cultural study of executives’ choice, decisiveness, and risk adjustment in international marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 52(4), 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuten, T., & Urban, D. (1999). Specific responses to unmet expectations: The value of linking Fishbein’s theory of reasoned action and Rusbult’s investment model. International Journal of Management, 16(4), 484–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 133–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Oxford: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, R. Y., & Strong, D. M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W., & Watts, S. (2008). Online communities as communities of practice: A case study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 55–71.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Future R&D Strategy, Division of Policy Research, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI), 245 Daehang-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-806, Republic of Korea

    Suchul Lee

  2. MIS Department, Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322-3515, USA

    Yong Seog Kim

  3. Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Pohang University of Science & Technology, 77 Cheongam-Ro, Nam-Gu, Pohang, Gyeongbuk, Republic of Korea

    Euiho Suh

Authors
  1. Suchul Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yong Seog Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Euiho Suh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong Seog Kim .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bryan School of Business and Economics, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA

    Lakshmi S. Iyer

  2. College of Business Administration, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, USA

    Daniel J. Power

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lee, S., Kim, Y.S., Suh, E. (2015). Membership Reconfiguration in Knowledge Sharing Network: A Simulation Study. In: Iyer, L.S., Power, D.J. (eds) Reshaping Society through Analytics, Collaboration, and Decision Support. Annals of Information Systems, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11575-7_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation